Assessment of the Blasting Efficiency of a Long and Large-Diameter Uncharged Hole Boring Method in Tunnel Blasting Using 3D Numerical Analysis

Abstract

Cut blasting is one of the most essential processes to reduce blast-induced vibration in tunnel blasting. The long and large-diameter uncharged hole boring (LLB) method is an example of one of the cut blasting methods, which utilizes large-diameter uncharged holes drilled in the tunnel face. In this study, blasting simulations were performed to analyze its blasting mechanism, and the LLB method and the traditional burn-cut method were simulated to compare their blasting efficiency. A 3D numerical analysis using LS-DYNA code, a highly non-linear transient dynamic finite element analysis using explicit time integration, was used to simulate the blasting process, and a Johnson–Holmquist constitutive material model, which is optimal for simulating brittle materials under dynamic conditions, was used to simulate the rock behavior under blasting. The modified LLB method showed a 3.75-fold increase in the advance per round compared to the burn-cut method, due to the increased formation of long and large-diameter uncharged holes compared to blast holes. This modified LLB method used 30% less explosives, so its failure range was approximately 1.25 times less than that of the burn-cut method, but its advance was approximately 4 times larger than the burn-cut method, which was similar to the original LLB method. This confirmed that the modified LLB method is significantly more efficient in terms of increased blasting efficiency (particularly the advance per round) as well as reduced blast-induced vibration, compared to the traditional cut blasting method.

Research on the mechanism and application of wedge cutting blasting with hole-inner delay

“…Therefore, the powerful clamping action from the surrounding rock increases the blasting difficulty and reduces the driving efficiency. Fortunately, as the first step of full-section blasting driving, cutting blasting can create an additional free surface for subsequent blasting steps 5 – 8 , thus dramatically weakening the clamping action from the surrounding rock, as presented in Fig. 1 b.…”